Building bridges: a Qualitative exploration of the athlete – guide partnership in high-performance parasport
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individuals who are visually impaired compete in Paralympic sports with the help of their sighted guides. The guide participates alongside the athlete, and the pair seek to achieve optimal performance together. The partnership transforms many sports -typically understood to be individual- into team sports, yet little is known about this unique sport relationship. The purpose of this study was to explore how the athlete – guide partnership challenges and reproduces normative assumptions of bodies, abilities, and high-performance sport. The study was informed by a critical interpretivist paradigm and included interviews with both athletes and guides from six high-performance athlete – guide pairs (12 interviews). The data were analysed through a reflexive thematic analysis and two themes were constructed. Changing ‘Visibility’: Reshaping Perspectives Through the Athlete – Guide Partnership illustrates how being part of the athlete – guide partnership led participants to different understandings about high-performance sport and disability. Tandeming Sport Systems Built for One demonstrates the challenges participants encountered navigating in tandem sport systems intended to support solo athletes. The findings suggest that the athlete – guide partnership creates inclusivity in Para sport by allowing athletes to fully participate. However, the partnership is also exposed to detrimental aspects of high-performance sport environments that prioritise performance rather than athlete well-being. The findings contribute to a growing body of critical disability sport scholarship that calls out ableism in sport. It also can inform the practices of the sport sector with the aim of better understanding and supporting the needs of visually impaired athletes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.046 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".